For people who were still wondering whether Nietzsche was an early Nazi or not:
>Socialism as the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and the dumbest, i.e., those who are superficial, envious, and three-quarters actors — is indeed entailed by "modern ideas" and their latent anarchism; but in the tepid air of democratic well-being the capacity to reach conclusions, or to finish, weakens. One follows — but one no longer sees what follows. Therefore socialism is on the whole a hopeless and sour affair; and nothing offers a more amusing spectacle than the contrast between the poisonous and desperate faces cut by today's socialists — and to what wretched and pinched feelings their style bears witness! — and the harmless lambs' happiness of their hopes and desiderata. Nevertheless, in many places in Europe they may yet bring off occasional coups and attacks: there will be deep "rumblings" in the stomach of the next century, and the Paris commune, which has its apologists and advocates in Germany, too, was perhaps no more than a minor indigestion compared to what is coming. But there will always be too many who have possessions for socialism to signify more than an attack of sickness — and those who have possessions are of one mind on one article of faith: "one must possess something in order to be something." But this is the oldest and healthiest of all instincts: I should add, "one must want to have more than one has in order to become more." For this is the doctrine preached by life itself to all that has life: the morality of development. To have and to want to have more — growth, in one word — that is life itself. In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a "will to negate life"; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts off its own roots. The earth is large enough and man still sufficiently unexhausted; hence such a practical instruction and demonstratio ad absurdum would not strike me as undesirable, even if it were gained and paid for with a tremendous expenditure of human lives. In any case, even as a restless mole under the soil of a society that wallows in stupidity, socialism will be able to be something useful and therapeutic: it delays "peace on earth" and the total mollification of the democratic herd animal; it forces the Europeans to retain spirit, namely cunning and cautious care, not to abjure manly and warlike virtues altogether, and to retain some remnant of spirit, of clarity, sobriety, and coldness of the spirit — it protects Europe for the time being from the marasmus femininus that threatens it.
Jeremiah Parker
Tl;dr Yes he was.
Jackson Cook
He was against pure socialism and for militarist imperialism basically. So yeah.
William Lewis
> t. undergrads who willfully ignore an entire body of work in order to remain ideologically pure
Jeremiah White
Wrong, I'm 25 and have been reading through Nietzsche's works for the past 8 years. Which body of work do you think I ignored and why are you ignoring the OP?
Jacob Parker
> I'm 25
lol
Landon Morgan
i.e. I have a degree.
Henry Morgan
Sauce?
Charles Anderson
You are so fucking retarded holy shit. He's talking about material socialism, off the back of Marx himself. There is none of the social dimension of the 21st century with feminism and the like. This has nothing to do with feminism, but he did have criticism of women because he was too short sighted to see them elevated out of their position of homemakers, that they too could break from all their cultural baggage. That breakage is really what nietzsche is after, what he's criticizing is slave morality in which one bows to others in order to uphold something that props up an abstract idea which the powerful use to dominate others, the church and fascism fall under this category as well. His criticism is that it is life denying, and that one should instead strive to affirm life and appease the will. Also he was predicting a socialist uprising in Germany you dingus.
Angel Reed
He wold have browsed /pol/ if he were alive today, face it, liberal scum. He was a known supporter of Hitler
Juan Garcia
kek
Hudson King
>the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine >human beings >or races
what did he mean by this?
Henry Edwards
>Nietzsche predicts and criticizes the Nazis, supports them against feminism you really seem like an idiot. he seems to be supporting manly virtues in general against feminisation
Thomas Jenkins
>This has nothing to do with feminism
He praises socialism for keeping the effeminization of Europe at bay for longer, at the end of the quote, and he mentions this notion more than once in his writings. It doesn't equal modern feminism exactly, but that is still the root problem which lead to its development. I have no doubt he would look at modern feminism and just consider it an evolved form of the symptoms he was seeing. He did say that women forgot how to fear men; it's because the men were becoming effeminate.
Jackson Morgan
Will to Power
Henry Clark
Even if your retarded reading was in any way accurate, which it isn't, at worst this would make him a fedora redpiller MRA, not a Nazi by any stretch, you absolute mental vacuum.
Camden Butler
How being against socialism makes him a nutzee?
Colton Roberts
Pepe represents both National Socialism and anti-woman sentiments, idiot. REDPILL = NIETZSCHE = AGAINST WOMEN AND JEWRY AND LEFTISM = LORD KEK
Jordan Carter
>giant tirade against socialism >somehow proves he was a national socialist
Tyler Nelson
Pepe=autism Nothing morr
Robert Nguyen
7/10.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if he was Hitler's father. Of course the contemporary left would hate Nietzsche because the contemporary left is the Last Man incarnate. I've always thought it's funny that feminists and SJWs don't spend more time bashing Nietzsche, but then I realized they've never read any of his works because they've been too busy doing finger paintings with menstrual blood.
Alexander Morgan
>the church and facism >implied athiest here >thinks he's intellectual enough to be on /lit I'm keking. How's life in physicalist postivist land?
Oliver Wood
If this reading is "retarded," then how do you explain this, also from Will to Power?
>Decadence itself is nothing to be fought: it is absolutely necessary and belongs to every age and every people. What should be fought vigorously is the contagion of the healthy parts of the organism. Is this being done? The opposite is done. Precisely that is attempted in the name of humanity. How are the supreme values held so far, related to this basic biological question? Philosophy, religion, morality, art, etc. (The cure: e. g., militarism, beginning with Napoleon who considered civilization his natural enemy.)
Christopher Hernandez
>somehow proves he was a national socialist Not what the OP said.